• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.207-244
• /
• 2003

There are many parties who connected with contracts like a contract for construction. Dispute arising from the two parties can be souled by themselves. but it grows the necessity of settlement at one effort. The meaning of multiparty arbitration is solution of mixed disputes without inconsistency through multiparty concerned. H the parses wish to settle the disputes by arbitration, they must come to an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement is necessary to resolve disputes autonomously, that may be in the form of a separate agreement or in the form of a clause in a contract. More ever it is resonable to view the arbitration agreement as a substantive contract in its legal nature enabling the authority for dispute resolution by the arbitrator. I had argument about who should appoint the arbitrator. That is to say, each party can appoint the arbitrator, otherwise the courts can appoint one. The basis of multiparty arbitration is focused on the factor that the courts may have the right to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings without consent of the parties. The dispute can be settled by the arbitrators who are appointed. Appointing arbitrator is very important because it affects the party's equality. The right to appoint arbitrator shall be entitled each party in multiparty arbitration. Therefore they can appoint plural arbitrators by mutual agreement. for .reference to Rules of Arbitration of The International Chamber of Commerce, the Court shall appoint a sole arbitrator or three arbitrators in condition. The Arbitration Act of Korea dose not have the clause on multiparty arbitration including the arbitration rules. But if we have the clause enacted, it brings a situation in which both parties gain a benefit.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.147-165
• /
• 2008

Appointment of arbitrators is very important in arbitration. As it has been a long laps since Korean peninsula was devided into two parts, South and North, it has come to be too much gaps between South and North in the law, social system, commercial practice and etc.. South Korea is familar to international commercial practice and capitalistic legal system generalized internationally in modern times. On the other hand as North Korea was closed society for a long time, they are not familar to international commercial practice and market economy. In this connection, commercial disputes arising from the transactions between South and North will occur frequently and it will be very difficult to select governing law or commercial practice referred to the disputes. Under the circumstances, when and if an arbitrator from South or North will be appointed as presiding arbitrator in the tribunal composed by three arbitrators, the part from which the presiding arbitrator come will be a majority, and it will be advantageous to the parties came from the part of which the presiding arbitrator come from. Such being the case, sole arbitrator or presiding arbitrator needs to be appointed among foreigner. Otherwise I recommend the tribunal composed by two arbitrators and umpire system. As to arbitrator's fee, as there is a big gap in its economic aspects between South and North, I supposed to need establishing the fund made by corporation with South and North in order to compensate arbitrators from South or abroad for their fee. Finally it is more important to prevent disputes arising from transactions between South and North. In order to prevent the disputes, education for North Korean about international commercial practice and skill to make a contract of international sale of goods and investment are needed.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권3호
• /
• pp.207-227
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. The parties are free to agree on the number of arbitrators. The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the arbitration system that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. The purpose of this paper is to examine the specific elements of the Arbitration Clause through arbitration laws, arbitration rules and the related cases, to introduce the standard clause which are recommended by the international institution and the individual countries, and to make the parties of international commercial contracts reflect them in their contracts. Thus this author would like to recommend the famous and well known the Standard Clause which were drafted by international institution such as ICC and UNCITRAL or individual countries.(LCIA, AAA, CIETAC, KCAB)

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the Supreme Court decision of the United Kingdom in Jivraj v. Hashwani (2011) concerning the employment issue of arbitrators, falling within the exception of genuine occupational requirement under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and nationality of arbitrators. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Jivraj v. Hashwani, unanimously overturning decision of the English Court of Appeal. The facts of this case and the decision of the Court of Appeal have been widely discussed. The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with approval within the international arbitration community in London, having restored the legal position to that prior to the Court of Appeal's ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's finding that arbitrators are the employees of the arbitrating parties. Arbitrators were held to be genuinely self-employed, and therefore outside the scope of the Regulations or Equality Act(2010). As such, the anti-discrimination provisions are not applicable to the selection, engagement or appointment of arbitrators. Most importantly, the Supreme Court's finding that arbitrators are not employees removes the possibility of challenges to arbitration agreements on the grounds that they are in breach of the Equality Act. As a practical matter, parties no longer need to consider carving out nationality provisions when drafting arbitration agreements.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.113-146
• /
• 2005

Bankruptcy proceedings serve the purpose of the collective satisfaction of the debtor's creditors through the realisation of the debtor's assets and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom. Upon the adjudication bankruptcy, the debtor's right to administer and dispose of the property belonging to the bankruptcy estate shall be vested in the administrator. If a mutual contract was not or not completely fulfilled by the debtor and the other party at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the administrator has right to choose wether to fulfil or terminate the contractual relation. Legal acts that have been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy and that are detrimental to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. However, these effects of bankruptcy will have not great influence on the arbitration agreement between the debtor and another party. An arbitration agreement that has been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy is binding the administrator as an universal legal successor of debtor. Only the arbitration agreement directly disadvantageous to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. Furthermore, it is not at the discretion of administrator whether or not to submit the dispute to arbitration because an arbitration agreement does not belong under the category of Art. 50 Korean bankruptcy Act which demands a mutual contract. Arbitral proceeding upon the property of the bankruptcy estate and pending for the debtor as plaintiff or against the debtor as defendant at the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy may be taken up at the given status by the administrator. This leads to a change of the party. If a duly summoned party fails to appear in arbitration court, the arbitrator, if satisfied there is no valid excuse, may continue the proceedings and make the award as if all the parties were present. This may be disadvantagious to the debtor's creditors because the arbitral award have the same effects on the participants as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. Even if there is a change of party on side of debtor to the administrator in bankruptcy, the arbitral proceedings will not be automatically postponed or suspended. The matter of how to proceed is at discretion of administrator, when the parties haven't agree on the arbitral proceedings. He can continue the arbitral proceedings without to grant an adjournment of hearing. However, an arbitration award may be challenged by a party dissatisfied and set aside by the court based upon the misconduct that violates the basic rights of the parties to a fair hearing. The arbitrator must treat the parties equally in the arbitral proceedings and give each party a full opportunity to present his case. The arbitrator, therefore, will carefully exercise his discretion in determining whether to continue the arbitral proceedings or to grant a postponing. In the practice, the arbitral proceedings may be usually postponed to grant due process.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.51-69
• /
• 2008

The financial industry in which arbitration is most frequently resorted to so as to resolve disputes is the sector related to the securities industry. Most securities related disputes are raised from broker-dealer controversies which is not new in the Republic of Korea. The disputes between securities brokers and customers are very frequently settled by arbitration in the United States. But the arbitration in the securities area may deprive investors from securities regulation's protection. Introducing the United States' Federal Supreme Courts cases, the author explores the logic of how the pre-dispute arbitration agreement compatible with Securities regulations. However, the author insist the South Korea should more careful in accepting pre-dispute arbitration contract in securities area. Mostly because of the lack of more specific way to secure substantive fairness in securities arbitration. Also the author worries about the possibility of prevailing pre-dispute arbitration agreement in all of the securities investment contract without any other choices, or securities laws' protection. But the author also suggests to introduce public securities arbitration system of the States, and also insists the way to secure substantive fairness, or the application of securities regulations in securities arbitrations. Which may be the pre-requirements for the pre-dispute arbitration agreement in securities investment contract.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2002

Arbitration Act does not have express provision about voluntary agreement for the arbitration which third party, that is, the expert confirms factual bases of party's relationship of rights and duties, determines contents of the contract, and supplements or modifies contracts, and then the parties obey the expert's decision, but it is more probable that the parties can agree to this kind of arbitration agreement as long as they freely make a contract within the scope of law. However, there is a split of authority on the scope of such arbitration agreement. Some scholars argue that the parties can only agree on the extent of the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract. On the other hand, the other scholars argue that the parties can consent not only the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of contract, but also the expert's supplement or modification of contents of contract. Due to the expert's decision has effect on both parties and judges who give a judgment as a matter of law, this kind of arbitration agrement can contribute to prevent litigation. Also arbitration relieves court's burden, if such arbitration agreement was done on the important disputes. Considering that the arbitration agreement can function as a dispute resolution or a dispute prevention, it is desirable that legislators make the provision about this kind of arbitration and allow the application of arbitration Act in such arbitration agreement. Most scholars agree that the voluntary agreement for the arbitration as to third party's supplement or modification of contents of the contract can be included in the concept of a substantive law. However, it has not been concluded whether the voluntary agreement for the arbitration which follows the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract has the nature of substantive law or procedural law. The dispute about the nature of such arbitration agreement have some shortcomings in the effect of second kind of voluntary arbitration and the applicability of procedural principles. Therefore, it will be more adequate that the focus is given to the original function of this kind of arbitration agreement and the applicability of procedural principles (the neutrality of arbitrator, the assurance of hearing of the parties) rather than the dispute regarding the nature of this kind of arbitration agreement. Considering that more attention is given to the substitutive dispute resolution these days, the function of arbitration as prevention to the litigation and resolution before the litigation should be emphasized. To do this, a legal dispute about such arbitration agreement has to be resolved. More important issues in this kind of arbitration agreement are to retain of the neutral expert and to positively inform the benefits of this institution to the public.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.